EOL support trouble in 1.15
ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net
Mon Jun 1 08:50:10 BST 2009
Frits Jalvingh wrote:
> After some debugging I found out that not only the shared repo needs a proper
> format but the branched repo needs a higher format too... It used working tree
> format 4 while at least 5 was needed... That was not very clear to me (first
> time I ever encountered a working tree format) - it might be a good idea to at
> least put that in the reference documentation.
Yes, that's really annoying. I'll update the documentation.
> It might also be a good idea to at least show a warning when someone tries to
> use EOL filtering while the underlying format(s) do not support it - it now
> failed without any indication and that was hard to debug; I only found out
> about this after lavishly sprinkling print statements thru the bazaar source
> code ;-)
I'll consider this. Until we support branch-specific rules though, my
main concern is that the warning will become really annoying because the
rules need to be defined "globally" for all branches on your computer.
> OK, now filtering works but I have something unexpected. I'm running on Linux,
> and all of my filtered files have been commited using lf eols (in the
> So, as a test, I added eol = crlf to the rules file for all files and branched.
> The result was a filtered working tree (files have crlf line endings) but all of
> these files show as "modified". bzr status shows all 8000 of them as modified;
That's clearly a bug. I can reproduce it and I'm in the process of
fixing it now.
> doing a bzr diff on a file shows no changes:
That bit is correct.
> jal at pyramides:~/new2/trunk$ bzr diff to.etc.domui/.classpath
> === modified file 'to.etc.domui/.classpath'
> I tried commiting; it commits all of these files
That's wrong as well. The underlying cause is the same thing causing
status to display the wrong results. I'm onto it and hope to have a fix
in the next day or two.
More information about the bazaar